Electronegativity Calculator

Two fluorines are the most electronegative pair in the table and form a perfectly non-polar bond.

Clear
Electronegativity difference2.23
Percent ionic character71.15%by Pauling's expression
Percent covalent character28.85%
Bond typeLargely ionicon the conventional 0.4 and 1.7 boundaries
Na0.93
Cl3.16
Negative poleClthe more electronegative atom
The widest difference anywhere in the table is francium against fluorine at 3.28, which this expression puts at about 93 % ionic; caesium-fluorine, the pair usually quoted, gives 92 %. Nothing reaches 100 %.

The formula

percent ionic = 100 (1 - exp(-0.25 * (difference)^2))

A difference, not a value

Electronegativity on its own says nothing about a bond. What matters is the difference between the two atoms: two fluorines have the highest electronegativity in the table and form a perfectly non-polar bond, because the difference is zero.

No bond is fully ionic

Pauling's expression approaches 100 % only as the difference grows without limit. The widest difference anywhere in the table is francium against fluorine at 3.28, worth about 93 % — though caesium-fluorine at 3.19 and 92 % is the pair usually quoted, because francium's electronegativity is barely measurable and its longest-lived isotope survives 22 minutes. Sodium chloride, the textbook ionic compound, is about 71 % ionic. The ionic-covalent divide is a spectrum with nothing at either end.

The 1.7 boundary is a convention

The familiar cut-offs — below 0.4 non-polar, above 1.7 ionic — are teaching conventions, chosen because 1.7 happens to fall near 50 % ionic character on Pauling's curve. They are not measurements and nothing physical changes as you cross them.

Models, and where they stop

Slater's rules, the Kapustinskii equation and Pauling's ionic-character expression are all empirical fits, not derivations. They were built to reproduce measured numbers with arithmetic simple enough to do by hand, and they succeed at that within perhaps five or ten per cent. Where a page here quotes one, it says which — a figure from a fitted rule and a figure from a Born-Haber cycle are not the same kind of thing, even when they agree.